Do you think the Queen would be a better prime minister than the prime minister? Probably not – she’s really old. It may be borderline treason to say it, but she is almost certainly too old to be prime minister and so might be even worse than the current one. Or maybe it’s borderline treason to suggest that she could be prime minister at all? After all, I think the person the prime minister is ostensibly primely ministering to is the Queen. So, if she were prime minister, she’d be ministering to herself, which sounds vaguely rude. In a way, that might also be treason. And is constitutionally unsound. At her age.

So it’s not a workable idea, but I like its narrative arc. The Queen rolling her sleeves up (or having them rolled up by a footman) (or maybe an armperson) and saying: “Looks like we’re going to have to do this the old-fashioned way!” Just like after Henry VIII executed Thomas Cromwell.

Not that she should cut Theresa May’s head off. I wouldn’t approve of that. Although, I must admit, I can imagine it. You know what I mean? She’s got that “walking out to the scaffold” look at the moment. I think she could really carry it off, which is not something you could say about most prime ministers. David Cameron’s face would look ridiculous if his head were chopped off, like a sort of pink grinning basketball; Blair would still look smug; John Major would be unrecognisable without the glasses. There’s no doubt about it, in this regard Theresa May’s right up there with Alec Douglas-Home.

She can do Brexit and dance with Trump and go horse riding with Putin and have all the books about Diana publicly burned

Nevertheless, let’s not execute anybody – that’s not the Queen’s style. She’s tough but fair. She’s quiet but old. Her first prime minister was Winston Churchill and her last can be herself! She can do Brexit and dance with Trump and go horse riding with Putin and have all the books about Diana publicly burned or something – probably not that, I don’t know, I’m just brainstorming. But I think it’s really interesting and has an appropriate pre-apocalyptic feel and, most importantly of all, involves a major celebrity (by which I mean the Queen), which would really capture the public’s imagination.

I mean, it’s what Strictly needs. Urgently. Get the Queen on Strictly, problem solved – doesn’t matter that otherwise it’s just hurdlers and weathermen. Or was that last year? Anyway, if you’ve got the Queen, everyone’s watching. Simon Cowell would probably kill himself. But then Craig says her samba isn’t sexy enough, or her arms waggled wrong, and everyone’s upset.

So, stick to prime minister, I reckon. It’s what the producers of The Crown are crying out for. Some sort of real-life Bond-film climax, ready for season 20. And no one could argue with it. It wouldn’t be like they’d brought back Princess Margaret as a robot or anything. It would have actually happened, as though Princess Margaret had really come back as a robot and they simply dramatised it. You can’t argue with history. You can’t say history jumped the shark. Even post-Trump. But personally, I don’t think the Queen, even if she were also prime minister, would actually bring back Princess Margaret as a robot. I think that’s idle speculation. There’s no way Netflix is getting that lucky.

The reason I’m ruminating on who might replace Theresa May is that the Tories are doing it and they were the ones who wanted her to be prime minister in the first place. No one else did. And now even they don’t. Superb. Last week, it was reported that the European Research Group, which sounds nicer than it is because in reality it’s a bunch of Tory MPs who hate Europe (and probably aren’t that keen on research or groups either, come to think of it), were openly talking about how and when to get rid of her.

You can imagine it: there they are, all crossly talking about how wrong they recently were and so how important it is that we now do exactly what they think. Which is probably to have a government led by Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg or one of the other monstrously bad men they hang out with. Well, I prefer the Queen to that lot and I’d like to hear Jacob Rees-Mogg stand up and explain why he’d make a better prime minister than the Queen or the pope or Jesus or any of the people he’s at various times pretended he’s more into than himself.

What an odd situation we’re in. We’ve got a prime minister that hardly anybody wants – a year or so ago a minority thought “she’ll do for now”, but that was pretty much her popularity zenith – trying to push through a plan that absolutely nobody wants. I think that’s true, isn’t it? That nobody wants it, this “Chequers plan”? It’s a form of Brexit, so all the people who voted against Brexit (such as Theresa May) don’t want it. But it’s apparently a feebly soft Brexit – “economic vassalage”, according to Johnson – so all of the people who want Brexit don’t want it. And also the EU, which doesn’t want Brexit and hasn’t agreed to the Chequers plan, doesn’t want it.

So what are its advantages? Well, it’s not the option that anyone dreads most, I suppose. We can’t agree on what course of action is worse than the Chequers plan, but we can all agree that a worse one exists. A consensus is forming around what the second worst thing to do is and so we’ll do that.

Of course, Theresa May herself, for all the stress she’s going through, is probably broadly pleased that she’s still prime minister. But she may be in a minority of one (or two – her husband’s pretty supportive). That seems a bit unfair. If no one’s getting what they want, surely that should also include the prime minister. So the only route to justice within this catastrophe is to have a prime minister who unquestionably, undeniably, does not want the job. God bless you, ma’am.